State of Utah, in the interest of L.W. and D.W.

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of L.W. and D.W.,
persons under eighteen years of age.
______________________________

M.W.,
Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000863-CA

F I L E D
January 31, 2002 2002 UT App 17 -----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Robert S. Yeates

Attorneys:
John E. Laherty, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Martha Pierce and Tracy Mills, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem -----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Greenwood.

BENCH, Judge:

Appellant (Father) argues that the trial court erred when it concluded Father's drug abuse rendered him unfit to parent. The State and Guardian ad Litem contend that Father has not adequately fulfilled his marshaling burden.

Father attempted to accomplish the first part of the marshaling requirement by listing the evidence supporting and contradicting the juvenile court's finding that Father's drug abuse places the children at risk of harm and impairs his ability to parent. However, Father has failed to fulfill the second part of the requirement by showing how the "court's findings are so lacking in support as to be against the clear weight of the evidence." In re D.G., 938 P.2d 298, 301 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (quotations and citations omitted). The record clearly shows that Father has a long and pervasive history of drug abuse. It was Father's drug abuse that first brought the family to the attention of DCFS and resulted in the children's initial removal from the home. Throughout the attempts at reunification, Father continued to test positive for illegal drug use, including methamphetamine. As a result, the children were removed several more times after trial placements back in the home with Father. The juvenile court acknowledged that Father had complied with every other requirement of the reunification plan, but could not or would not discontinue his drug abuse.

Father challenges only one of four bases for termination. Father argues that the juvenile court's findings are inadequate to support its conclusion that Father is unfit because of his drug use, but does not specifically contest the juvenile court's conclusions that the children are neglected, that Father has not remedied the circumstances that necessitated the children being in out-of-home placements, and Father's failure of parental adjustment. Any one of these conditions is sufficient to justify termination of Father's parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407 (Supp. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge